I am no politics person. I really don't follow with all that. I am a 15 year old freshmen. I speak what I hear and see..
<div class="quote_poster">XSV Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">^ Yes because everything is all Bush's fault, and the US will be a much nicer nation without him . I feel bad for you, because you lack common sense and just follow the media's lead of scapegoating Bush for all America's problems. The guy has made some mistakes in hindsight, but name one US president that hasn't. Who was the last president who was loved by citizens during his tenure?</div> XSV, that's just a way of deflecting and marginializing the Bush administration's mistakes, and you know it. Don't generalize like that. You can't just group all presidents that have made a mistake together. There are varying degrees of mistakes and different numbers of them. And you also have to take into account the person's intentions as well. All presidents have made mistakes, but Bush's mistakes have arguably been the worst of the last 3-4 administrations. And he's made so many of them. But worst of all, he's lied multiple times and there's reason to suspect that he understood the consequences of their actions (not making them mistakes anymore). And arguments about a lying media are pointless, IMO. Both sides make these accusations and that's because the Republican and Democratic media are just as big as each other. Finally, who was the last president that had such a low approval rating? You can pick on Umair's emotion-based arguments all you want, but I've yet to see you defend your point that people are wrong to criticize Bush. (btw, when I say "he," referring to Bush, I am also pointing to his whole administration. It's just easier to type it out like that. But, one person is never the sole root of a problem. Especially in a country like the US, which has a complex democratic procedure.)
<div class="quote_poster">XSV Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Are we talking about the same Clinton who was nearly impeached?</div> Clinton was impeached for having inappropriate relations w/ female employees. Kinda pales in comparison to being responsible for the deaths of thousands of lives all for the sake of oil.
<div class="quote_poster">dunksworth Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Clinton was impeached for having inappropriate relations w/ female employees. Kinda pales in comparison to being responsible for the deaths of thousands of lives all for the sake of oil.</div> the neo-cons are trying to spin foley as clinton-monica
<div class="quote_poster">deception Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">the neo-cons are trying to spin foley as clinton-monica</div> Wow.
<div class="quote_poster">deception Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">the neo-cons are trying to spin foley as clinton-monica</div> Not surprised. This administation is notorious for diverting blame for obvious mistakes and not taking any on their shoulders whatsoever. That's pretty absurd though.
<div class="quote_poster">XSV Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It pisses me off when people criticize Bush for going into Iraq. Have you heard the testimonies of some of the victims at Saddam's trial. Do you know what they were doing to people in Iraq? Nukes or no nukes, somebody has to protect the people of those countries.</div> How about the thousands of people that are being slaughtered all over africa. The states wouldn't be bothered with that because there is nothing to gain for them in africa. The US only wanted to install a puppet government to sell them cheap oil. There is genocide going on all over the world and the US does nothing. Now there is a nuclear North Korea, and the US does nothing. There is only one contry in the whole world that has atomic/nuclear weapons and has used it on an enemy in the past...THE FREAKIN US.....why should they be allowed to govern other countries. How would the US like it of France, UK, Germany, China and Japan all occupied the US because of there Weapons of Mass Destruction. Total double standard.
<div class="quote_poster">norespect Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">How about the thousands of people that are being slaughtered all over africa. The states wouldn't be bothered with that because there is nothing to gain for them in africa. The US only wanted to install a puppet government to sell them cheap oil. There is genocide going on all over the world and the US does nothing. Now there is a nuclear North Korea, and the US does nothing. There is only one contry in the whole world that has atomic/nuclear weapons and has used it on an enemy in the past...THE FREAKIN US.....why should they be allowed to govern other countries. How would the US like it of France, UK, Germany, China and Japan all occupied the US because of there Weapons of Mass Destruction. Total double standard.</div> ^^ He gets it.
<div class="quote_poster">Umair15 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Only 2 more years till Bush is gone </div> Aren't you the kid who admitted you didn't know anything about Bush or the U.S. when I called you out in the 9/11 thread?
<div class="quote_poster">norespect Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">How about the thousands of people that are being slaughtered all over africa. The states wouldn't be bothered with that because there is nothing to gain for them in africa. The US only wanted to install a puppet government to sell them cheap oil. There is genocide going on all over the world and the US does nothing. Now there is a nuclear North Korea, and the US does nothing. There is only one contry in the whole world that has atomic/nuclear weapons and has used it on an enemy in the past...THE FREAKIN US.....why should they be allowed to govern other countries. How would the US like it of France, UK, Germany, China and Japan all occupied the US because of there Weapons of Mass Destruction. Total double standard.</div> Excellent points. If you're going to scream WMD, there better be some god damn WMD's in the country that you're invading and risking the lives of your own soldiers for. I found it hilarious how Osama Bin Laden became a backgroundenemy and out of nowhere Saddam became the primary target. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Yes because everything is all Bush's fault, and the US will be a much nicer nation without him </div> When looking at his approval ratings, the majority of Americans would think so. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I feel bad for you, because you lack common sense and just follow the media's lead of scapegoating Bush for all America's problems. </div> Depends on what media you watch. I live in Canada...and usually when I see Fox news, they're always kissing his ass anyway. So, I stopped watching American media altogther. When looking at the Canadian media's coverage of Bush, they don't blame things squarely on him, rahter, they question as to why he did something specific, which is legitimate. If you want Bush-bash, go watch the Daily show (Jon Stewart's the sh*t). <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> The guy has made some mistakes in hindsight, but name one US president that hasn't. Who was the last president who was loved by citizens during his tenure? </div> No one is ever loved by everyone, but no one has ever been hated as much as Bush either. I mean, if the government has to set up propganda Iraq "liberation" videos (I saw this on the daily show), making it seem like the Iraqis welcomed the Americans (when it was the contrary), it shows proof that not even the Iraqis themselves saw this "war" as justified. Okay, so he captured Saddam Hussein...what about the WMDs? What about the thousands of civilians and soldiers who died in battle? Was it worth capturing Saddam, or was it worth losing all those lives because they now had a government to use as puppets to thier needs? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> There is only one contry in the whole world that has atomic/nuclear weapons and has used it on an enemy in the past...THE FREAKIN US </div> Great point. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Are we talking about the same Clinton who was nearly impeached? </div> Do you really think Bush is doing a better job of handling everything then Clinton would have?
<div class="quote_poster">TheBlackMamba Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Aren't you the kid who admitted you didn't know anything about Bush or the U.S. when I called you out in the 9/11 thread?</div> I said I didnt know much about 9/11 and about Bush really, but again, I am saying what I feel is correct. And what does me saying Bush has 2 more years have to do with anything?
I'm tired of the Bush supporters making Clinton references. Bill Clinton was the best president of the past four easily. The country was in a surplus and he generally had good relations with the UN and other countries. He made one moral mistake that was blown up to be like he started a pointless war costing thousands of lives. Oh wait...
At this point and time, I'm really surprised that Bush even HAS supporters. Maybe this is ignorant of me, but can the Bush supporters please tell me any actions that he has commited to during his term(s) so far that prove that he has done a better job then Bill Clinton? This isn't for debate's sake, I just want to see what he has accomplished as a president so far that betters Clinton's achievements, since Clinton was such a bad president and all. Going into Iraq over Weapons That Don't Exist (also known as WTDE) and claiming that Bin Laden will be brought to justice are not reasonable accomplishments. In fact, they aren't accomplishments at all.
It's just partisan politics. Every country has it, but it seems to be deeply rooted in America. The idea that your political affiliation is permanent and that you should blindly support a party's decisions is somewhat ridiculous IMO. And it's somewhat undemocratic.
<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It's just partisan politics. Every country has it, but it seems to be deeply rooted in America. The idea that your political affiliation is permanent and that you should blindly support a party's decisions is somewhat ridiculous IMO. And it's somewhat undemocratic.</div> Yup it's called dictatorship, and you can't have dictatorship without a DICK in the front. As for Clinton having sex, Bill Maher said it best .."If the Commander and Chief can't get head whenever he wants, what hope is there for the rest of us?"
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> The idea that your political affiliation is permanent and that you should blindly support a party's decisions is somewhat ridiculous IMO </div> Otherwise called idiocy, especially when it comes to a party jeopardizing your country's foreign relations (among many other things) as well.
<div class="quote_poster">Shard Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Not surprised. This administation is notorious for diverting blame for obvious mistakes and not taking any on their shoulders whatsoever. That's pretty absurd though.</div> Wait a sec though, this paige was 16/17 years old. Let's stop pretending he was a little kid. One can go to jail for life if they commit murder at that age. It's very unprofessional but not the end of the world.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Wait a sec though, this paige was 16/17 years old. Let's stop pretending he was a little kid. One can go to jail for life if they commit murder at that age. It's very unprofessional but not the end of the world.</div> No. 16/17 is underage, and a political figure shouldn't engage in relations with a girl that age. There is no way it's close to Clinton, we're talking a teenager and a woman secretary.
<div class="quote_poster">Shard Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">No. 16/17 is underage, and a political figure shouldn't engage in relations with a girl that age. There is no way it's close to Clinton, we're talking a teenager and a woman secretary.</div> It's underage by how much (btw 18 year olds are also teenagers...)? Please, that's not a little kid.
